Monthly Archives: September 2022

All of us have been doing it this year: talking about the war in Ukraine.

Europe was the center of two global wars and now has its biggest war since World War II. A war that has disrupted global trade and caused spikes in fuel and food costs around the world. A war that has seen horrific atrocities. A war that has created 10 million refugees. A major modern war where the United States does not have direct military involvement.

It is well known that non-aggression is a core principle of libertarianism and that we are decidedly anti-war. Unfortunately we are often presented with a false dichotomy of how this works in practice: supposedly we must either take the position of the duopoly on wars of aggression, imperialism and the military industrial complex, or that we must seek to be a completely non-interventionist country waiting for foreign oppressors to murder our families before we can respond.

However, these are not our only options when dealing with foreign aggression, and we need to be able to present pro-liberty options, of which there are many. If we decide that the United States should support Ukraine against their Russian aggressor, there is still the question of what American support for Ukraine should look like from the point of view of a libertarian defense of non-aggression.

Within libertarian principles, any intervention must be consistent with the principles of non-aggression and consent. The American draft, aggression against innocent third parties, and wealth confiscation of Americans violate these principles.

Violations are happening right now, and to be effective in pushing back, we need to offer alternatives that are neither doing nothing nor all-out war. We have three options as a nation that we can use: embargoes and sanctions, letters of marque and reprisal, and material aid.

It is immoral to trade with bandits, thieves, or those responsible for slave labor. As such, libertarians can advocate for embargoes or sanctions against these activities and demand restitution for the victims (in this case Ukraine and its trading partners).

When a state like the Russian Federation deliberately obscures its theft by mixing morally created products and services with stolen products and services then we are right to sanction or embargo all of the comingled goods and services.

Furthermore, it is immoral to sell something knowing that it will be used to commit acts of aggression. You are free to give someone your firearm because it is your property, but you become an accessory to murder if you know they intend to use it to commit murder.

However, it is wrong under American principles to single out individuals who have done nothing wrong. Russian oligarchs deserve a day in American courts to show they have not been profiteering off of theft and murder; they deserve a right to due process the same as everyone else.

Now, the long practiced pro-Russian counter argument is whataboutism. For instance, what about the United States selling arms to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that murder civilians? What about selling guns to the ATF that they illegally give to cartels? Yes, we need to oppose all of those things too, and we need to be consistent about it. Embargoing all such regimes and the ATF makes that libertarian argument stronger instead of weak and hypocritical.

Marque and Reprisal is a license to outsource military action to a third party without direct involvement. It is covered in the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 as:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .

It is often derided as being legalized piracy, but it is actually the opposite. Marque and Reprisal was passed by Congress and signed by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Wars to fight the Barbary pirates.

Those who kill and steal should not be protected by national laws from stealing and killing. As an alternative to occupying Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, we could have passed letters of marque and reprisal making it legal for Americans to voluntarily fight ISIS without legal repercussions back home.

While this has limited usefulness against Russia, we should never forget that this is a tool we have to not start wars while also not ignoring aggression. Congress can declare open hunting season on the enemies of peace.

Finally, offering material aid for the purpose of defense is justified, while weapons sales for aggression are not. Just as it would not be morally wrong for your uncle to give a firearm to a friend of yours who had their house repeatedly burglarized. However, that doesnt make it okay for Uncle Sam to steal the money for that firearm from your wallet.

The problem of giving material aid to Ukraine isnt the aid, its how it is funded on the backs of struggling Americans. According to the 61st NDAA bicameral agreement, the United States will spend 777.7 billion dollars on the national defense budget for the fiscal year 2022. This money isnt just used to defend the United States from threats like Russia and China, we also use it to defend Europe and invade foreign nations for nation building exercises.

We need to stop, and Russias war in Ukraine provides us with an exit opportunity. Instead of increasing the budget to replace what we are giving Ukraine, we should draw down the military permanently. We should plan on giving Ukraine enough aid to reduce the future Russian military threat to both Ukraine and the United States.

If we were to reduce the 2023 NDAA to $500 billion, we could afford a one time donation this year of $250 billion to Ukraine and still substantially reduce the ongoing federal deficit. We need to remain focused on the fact that Bidens error from a pro-liberty perspective isnt helping a defender against a military aggressor. Bidens error is financing it with more inflation and debt.

We must stand up for the non-aggression principle. Whenever we are faced with the false dichotomy of war or pacifism, we must demand that we follow American principles and consider alternatives.

A range of issues related to liberty will be covered at Students For Libertys flagship event, LibertyCon International. If youd like to attend LibertyCon International in Miami this October, be sure to click on the button below to register and book your room with the discounted rate. You can use the code LEARNLIBERTY for 50% discount on your tickets!

We look forward to seeing you there!

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian alternatives to war with Russia - Learn Liberty

The limited government libertarians are at it again at the Department of Public Instruction hearing in Bismarck on Sept 9. Tony Gehrig fan, Jodi Plecity, wants a state-ran [sic] body to enforce her tedious rules and regulations of historical political correctness.

Fargo Republican Rep. Jim Kasper isnt satisfied with the law he wrote to ban CRT . It seems his frantic slapdash effort to abolish CRT was not good enough. He did, however, admit to not knowing much about it, only knowing what he heard or read about it, somewhere, sometime. Well golly, not this time. The Forum said in its article hes putting his foot down! He plans to add teeth to the ban so that complaints can be investigated and violators can be punished.

Big Police State Government, also brought to you by the GOP.

What the powers that be in North Dakota fear is the ugly history of capitalism being revealed. Their wondrous industrial capitalism that lifted humanity out of poverty began in the early 1800s. The Manchester UK cotton mills were their flagships. These were worked 14 hours a day, 6 days a week by impoverished and mostly Irish women and children. What of the cotton that also fueled this? Grown by masses of kidnapped and enslaved Africans on stolen Indigenous land. This is what the GOP and their libertarian cohorts want to cover up.

Ron Gaul lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Read more:

Letter: Here's what the GOP and 'limited government' Libertarians don't want you to know - INFORUM

Queen Elizabeth II has passed away after 70 years on the throne. This is the longest reign of any British monarch and the second longest reign ever for the monarch of a sovereign country.

The United Kingdom has been plunged into a period of national heartbreak. Whether it be on social media, in peoples homes, or on the streets, British citizens everywhere have voiced their grief and condolences at the news.

And yet outsiders, especially libertarians, seem puzzled by this ostensibly bizarre, sentimental attachment the British have towards their ruler. How can a nation be so enamored with someone above their station?

When thinking about politics, libertarians can often become too focused on dry, abstract concepts, and overlook ones that many people value, notably culture, community, and history.

Queen Elizabeth II was a great unifier among the British people throughout the countrys ups and downs over the past 70 years. She was a constant figure to rally around who provided soul and national pride, someone who bound together the cultural heritage of the Commonwealth that makes trade and communication easier between peoples.

A representative for Britain across the world, utterly devoted to her duty with resolve, consistency, and humility.

She saw World War II and the ensuing rebuilding of the country, the troubles in Ireland, the Cold War, the industrial unrest that brought Britain to its knees, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and more recently Brexit.

Yet to a libertarian, monarchy is a form of evil. If all humans are to be equal and free, then nobody should have unjustified authority over another; there must be legitimacy, and birthright is certainly not a source of legitimacy in the 21st century.

Of course, this is a completely valid principle on which to construct your politics. The problem is that the real world is not valid, nor is it principled. We are not starting from scratch; we are dealing with nations where institutions, customs, and networks have developed over time, all around the world.

Hierarchical authority exists in every system, whether it be democratic, fascist, communist, or even anarchist. The question of politics is to organize society so that said authority maximizes certain values.

Libertarianism is about the sanctity of the individuals right to go about their life unhampered, on the condition that they do not harm others. Thus, society should be structured around that very principle.

Democracy is an important facet of this: it is the way we attempt to ensure accountability and renewal in governance. But democracy is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end.

Libertarian principles have a strong current of anti-politics. Political decision making, where collective resources and will is used to achieve ends, should be minimized, while private decision making should be maximized.

I can think of no greater nightmare than unchecked, radical political forces having the audacity and entitlement to enact their vision on the populace to reshape a society in whatever twisted image they feel is right at the time.

So why would a libertarian want the highest authority to be political? Why would we make heads of government, who wield hard, active power, also heads of state?

It is often said that the monarchy is useless because it doesnt do anything, but that is exactly the point; it is the unmoving, apolitical bulwark against the political nonsense we all hate. The monarch occupies positions, not to enact anything significant, but to prevent others from occupying them.

I enjoy the fact that every week, the prime minister, the head of government, has to humble themselves and bow to someone who has been around for far longer than they have. I enjoy the fact that the armed forces swear allegiance to the crown, not the political wing of the state.

They are, in essence, conditioned to defer to the embodiment of the nation, the land, and its history, and not the short-termism, greed, and psychopathy of politics.

Constitutional monarchies typically do not have secret police or gross overreaches of government power. They consistently have solid records on stability, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

It is no coincidence that the execution of the Tsars led to the horrors of communism, and the execution of Louis XVI led to imperial France under Napoleon.

This is the great tradition of British politics, law, and philosophy. Unlike in most of continental Europe, we do not deal in grand political visions and all their chaos. We value discovery, cynicism, experimentation, and pragmatism, all anti-political, and thus libertarian values.

We have no time for heavy-handed, radical politics, where everything we know and grew up around is cast aside every four years and subject to whatever theories some maniac has read in a book.

As a libertarian Brit, I do not feel less free knowing the head of state is unelected.

I feel less free when the single-payer National Health Service (NHS) makes me wait half a year for anything beyond a simple doctors appointment.

I feel less free knowing how our horrendous bureaucracy and tax system eats up swathes of public resources.

And I feel less free when the government imprisons people for making fun of others on the internet.

These are the fault of politics and of government, and that is where our attention is most needed. Rest in peace Queen Elizabeth II, long live the King.

For more content on the topic of liberty and monarchy, be sure to check out our short video on the topic by clicking on the button below.

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

Read more here:

You can be pro-freedom and a royalist - Learn Liberty

The following editorial published in the Dallas Morning News on Sept. 4:

The conservative Texas Supreme Court defended democracy.

Voters deserve better options on the ballot, but if the past two election cycles in Texas have taught us anything, partisan politicians will do all they can to keep candidates off the ballot if they dont conform to a party ideology.

Thats why it was hardly surprising to hear that Texas Republicans were trying to expel Libertarians from the ballot last week.

Thankfully, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court saw through the gimmick employed by leading state GOP politicians, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon, former Collin County Judge Keith Self and state Sen. Angela Paxton, among others.

The court dismissed an emergency petition to remove Libertarians from the ballot that came nearly four months after supposed violations of the Texas election code.

According to the petition, 23 Libertarian candidates allegedly did not pay their filing fees. The court decided that was irrelevant. Even if the candidates did not pay the fees, the request to remove them from the ballot is not an appropriate remedy at this stage of the election process.

Not only is it inappropriate, it is a blatant attempt to manipulate the system.

Republicans are hardly alone in trying to limit greater choice on the ballot. In 2020, Democrats were able to get candidates from the Green Party removed. In the same election, Republicans tried and failed to erase 44 Libertarian candidates.

This time, the state Supreme Court dismissed the petition due to untimeliness and the lack of explanation as to why the Republicans waited so long to bring the petition.

Access to the ballot lies at the very heart of a constitutional republic, the court wrote.

We couldnt have said it better, and we are grateful that our states conservative justices demonstrated that rule of law and respect for democratic processes are still the order of the day in Texas.

Access to alternatives is especially frightening to partisans these days. As big-party primaries increasingly serve extremist views, middle-of-the-road voters are looking for options where they dont have to hold their nose in the voting booth.

History tells us just why Republicans are so worked up this time. Patrick won reelection in 2018 by 5 percentage points over Democrat Mike Collier. A Libertarian candidate took 2% of the total vote.

This year, Patricks running against Collier again, and it is competitive again, so is there any wonder why he wants to shoo Libertarians?

Third-party candidates too often are too far out there to consider. But its becoming increasingly hard to distinguish how big-party candidates are any better. Sometimes they are more extreme.

The presence of third-party candidates on the ballot can serve as moderating influence, especially when it forces major-party candidates to think about appealing to a broader electorate.

That may not have been the Texas Supreme Courts intent. But it is the consequence. And for that we can be thankful.

But there is something we are even more thankful for. At the end of the day, the court protected democracy against a partisan ploy.

Follow this link:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas GOP tried to keep Libertarians off the ballot - Victoria Advocate

THERE cannot be any debate about it. The Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF) is an enemy of the Republic. After all, it is a rebel group whose members took up arms with the main intent of eventually taking over if not a major part of the Philippine territory, then its entirety.

And this is where we have to take issue with how Sen. Loren Legarda has painted the CPP-NPA-NDF as otherwise.

The more fundamental offense committed by Legarda, to my mind, is that her cavalier treatment of the leftist ideology, where she collapsed a broad spectrum of different shades of red into one homogeneous entity, has done all leftist ideologues a total disservice. In her desire to defend progressive people espousing leftist platforms from being red-tagged, she, in fact, carelessly simplified and offered them up for further red-tagging.

We can only second-guess Legarda's real intent, but what she has done is practically summarize and homogenize the dynamism of what comprises the left, equating the ideas of those who adhere to left-wing politics and who espouse a more progressive political platform with the CPP-NPA-NDF. This is a highly irresponsible simplification.

To be left or right is determined by someone's view of the economy. Being on the left means believing that globalization should primarily serve humanity instead of the interests of global corporations, that corporate interests should be regulated to protect the environment because they wouldn't do so if they are left alone, and that corporations should have social responsibility and should not be fixated on profits only. A leftist believes in economic regulation and in protecting the marginalized, even if it means interfering with the operations of the free market. Hence, leftists believe in minimum wages and price controls. They believe in taxing the rich more, and using taxes to finance social programs that would even include investing in the arts. While some leftists are socially authoritarian, most leftists are socially libertarian. They adhere to individual freedom, and would support divorce, same-sex marriages and abortion. They oppose the death penalty.

Get the latest news delivered to your inbox

Sign up for The Manila Times daily newsletters

Being an activist for these causes, and questioning state authority, when done peacefully and under the ambit of laws, should not and cannot be considered as dangerous to the Republic. Under these rubrics, I am personally a leftist who is also a social libertarian. My score in the political compass test is a minus 6.88, with minus 10 being the score for being perfectly leftist, and a minus 7.23, with minus 10 being the score for being perfectly libertarian. I am not even a centrist by all accounts.

There has been too much confusion in the way popular and ordinary discourse has branded the left as essentially communist, and then further committing an egregious error of associating communism only with the armed left. Some even go to the extent of associating the left in general, and communism in particular, with authoritarian regimes. This is the ground from where red-tagging emerges as a pejorative, where liberal-progressives who espouse leftist and libertarian beliefs end up being lumped together with Marxist, Leninist and Maoist rebels, and worse, terrorists.

This corruption of political labels and categories has to end. Being leftist is different from being an armed rebel, in the same manner that being an activist does not necessarily mean that one has taken up arms to topple the government. Likewise, it is a fallacy to contrast communism with democracy, considering that there are communist and socialist parties that compete in democratic elections in countries like India.

The ideal response to red-tagging is to clarify that not all kinds of red should be tagged as enemies of the state. Environmental activists who propose green economies tend to be leftist in orientation, and so are feminists and gay activists. Organized labor unions tend to be leftist in orientation. The hatred being espoused by many diehard Duterte supporters and Marcos loyalists toward liberal activists, that even translate to their dislike of the US Democrats, is misplaced simply because they are premised on fallacious imaging and assumptions. There are many good people who are fighting for socially relevant causes that under these misinformed rubrics would fall in the category of enemies of the state. A cursorial look at history would reveal that practically all major social benefits that people now enjoy, from wage protection to social amelioration policies, are largely the result of leftist and progressive activism. These include giving ayuda (financial assistance) and educational assistance.

It is here that Senator Legarda's statement may have done a lot of damage, when she irresponsibly and carelessly implied that good leftists and social progressives engaged in social activism and legitimate criticism are in the same basket as the armed cadres who impose revolutionary taxes, bomb cell site towers, conscript children and arm them, all with the intent of eventually toppling the government. What she did only further forced the misinformed hatred toward anything left to fester, and its adherents to double down in their prejudices and biases.

Having said this, it is important to point out that much as taking up arms can never be countenanced, there has to be an understanding of the backstories of people who rebel against government. While one cannot condone political violence, there should be an open mind to the reasons why people rebel. Certainly, being displaced by land grabbing capitalists, and being targeted for persecution by paramilitary groups on the mere suspicion of being a rebel, would push people to take justice in their own hands. It is hypocrisy to justify Chao Tiao Yumul's rampage as an act of desperation but condemn those who rebel. Much as we condemn the violence, it is a fact that the state failed them.

The solution to political violence is not red-tagging but to make sure that the interests of the marginalized are served by legitimate institutions of the state. And the better response to red-tagging is to show that some types of red are, in fact, essential in achieving that end.

Read the original post:

Red is a spectrum - The Manila Times